Validation of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS).
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
19
05
2020
accepted:
15
10
2020
entrez:
2
11
2020
pubmed:
3
11
2020
medline:
29
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Mobile health apps (MHA) have the potential to improve health care. The commercial MHA market is rapidly growing, but the content and quality of available MHA are unknown. Instruments for the assessment of the quality and content of MHA are highly needed. The Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) is one of the most widely used tools to evaluate the quality of MHA. Only few validation studies investigated its metric quality. No study has evaluated the construct validity and concurrent validity. This study evaluates the construct validity, concurrent validity, reliability, and objectivity, of the MARS. Data was pooled from 15 international app quality reviews to evaluate the metric properties of the MARS. The MARS measures app quality across four dimensions: engagement, functionality, aesthetics and information quality. Construct validity was evaluated by assessing related competing confirmatory models by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Non-centrality (RMSEA), incremental (CFI, TLI) and residual (SRMR) fit indices were used to evaluate the goodness of fit. As a measure of concurrent validity, the correlations to another quality assessment tool (ENLIGHT) were investigated. Reliability was determined using Omega. Objectivity was assessed by intra-class correlation. In total, MARS ratings from 1,299 MHA covering 15 different health domains were included. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed a bifactor model with a general factor and a factor for each dimension (RMSEA = 0.074, TLI = 0.922, CFI = 0.940, SRMR = 0.059). Reliability was good to excellent (Omega 0.79 to 0.93). Objectivity was high (ICC = 0.82). MARS correlated with ENLIGHT (ps<.05). The metric evaluation of the MARS demonstrated its suitability for the quality assessment. As such, the MARS could be used to make the quality of MHA transparent to health care stakeholders and patients. Future studies could extend the present findings by investigating the re-test reliability and predictive validity of the MARS.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Mobile health apps (MHA) have the potential to improve health care. The commercial MHA market is rapidly growing, but the content and quality of available MHA are unknown. Instruments for the assessment of the quality and content of MHA are highly needed. The Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) is one of the most widely used tools to evaluate the quality of MHA. Only few validation studies investigated its metric quality. No study has evaluated the construct validity and concurrent validity.
OBJECTIVE
This study evaluates the construct validity, concurrent validity, reliability, and objectivity, of the MARS.
METHODS
Data was pooled from 15 international app quality reviews to evaluate the metric properties of the MARS. The MARS measures app quality across four dimensions: engagement, functionality, aesthetics and information quality. Construct validity was evaluated by assessing related competing confirmatory models by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Non-centrality (RMSEA), incremental (CFI, TLI) and residual (SRMR) fit indices were used to evaluate the goodness of fit. As a measure of concurrent validity, the correlations to another quality assessment tool (ENLIGHT) were investigated. Reliability was determined using Omega. Objectivity was assessed by intra-class correlation.
RESULTS
In total, MARS ratings from 1,299 MHA covering 15 different health domains were included. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed a bifactor model with a general factor and a factor for each dimension (RMSEA = 0.074, TLI = 0.922, CFI = 0.940, SRMR = 0.059). Reliability was good to excellent (Omega 0.79 to 0.93). Objectivity was high (ICC = 0.82). MARS correlated with ENLIGHT (ps<.05).
CONCLUSION
The metric evaluation of the MARS demonstrated its suitability for the quality assessment. As such, the MARS could be used to make the quality of MHA transparent to health care stakeholders and patients. Future studies could extend the present findings by investigating the re-test reliability and predictive validity of the MARS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33137123
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241480
pii: PONE-D-20-14930
pmc: PMC7605637
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0241480Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
EMM, YT, LS, HB developed and run the German Mobile Health App Database project (MHAD). The MHAD is a self-funded project at Ulm University with no commercial interests. LS, HB and EMM received payments for talks and workshops in the context of e-mental-health. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
Educ Psychol Meas. 2016 Jun;76(3):387-411
pubmed: 29795870
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Jul 07;16:83
pubmed: 27387434
Psychol Methods. 2018 Sep;23(3):412-433
pubmed: 28557467
Lancet. 2018 Nov 10;392(10159):1789-1858
pubmed: 30496104
Internet Interv. 2021 Feb 24;24:100376
pubmed: 33718002
J Med Internet Res. 2013 Nov 15;15(11):e247
pubmed: 24240579
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016 Jun 10;4(2):e72
pubmed: 27287964
Depress Anxiety. 2017 Jun;34(6):518-525
pubmed: 28504859
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Feb 21;5(2):e7
pubmed: 28223263
Transl Behav Med. 2018 Sep 8;8(5):793-798
pubmed: 29471424
NPJ Digit Med. 2019 May 13;2:38
pubmed: 31304384
NPJ Digit Med. 2019 Dec 2;2:118
pubmed: 31815193
Depress Anxiety. 2019 Mar;36(3):213-224
pubmed: 30450811
BMJ. 2019 Mar 20;364:l920
pubmed: 30894349
J Stat Softw. 2009 Apr 1;30(3):1-19
pubmed: 21666874
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Aug 05;7(8):e14991
pubmed: 31381501
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2017 Dec;41(6):625-630
pubmed: 28749591
Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2020 Jan 9;11(1):1701788
pubmed: 32002136
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Oct 25;6(10):e10718
pubmed: 30361196
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016 Mar 10;13:35
pubmed: 26964880
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Mar 21;19(3):e82
pubmed: 28325712
Psychol Bull. 1992 May;111(3):490-504
pubmed: 16250105
Eval Health Prof. 2002 Mar;25(1):76-97
pubmed: 11868447
World Psychiatry. 2019 Oct;18(3):325-336
pubmed: 31496095
Int J Behav Med. 2021 Oct;28(5):552-560
pubmed: 33215348
Br J Psychol. 2014 Aug;105(3):399-412
pubmed: 24844115
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016 Dec 02;4(4):e132
pubmed: 27913373
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2016 Dec;30(6):1098-1109
pubmed: 29103552
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015 Aug 19;3(3):e82
pubmed: 26290327
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Apr 5;2(4):e192542
pubmed: 31002321
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016 Jun 14;4(2):e74
pubmed: 27302310
Int J Med Inform. 2019 Sep;129:95-99
pubmed: 31445295
J Med Syst. 2017 Aug;41(8):128
pubmed: 28735372
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015 Mar 11;3(1):e27
pubmed: 25760773
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Mar 27;8(3):e14479
pubmed: 32217504
World Psychiatry. 2019 Feb;18(1):97-98
pubmed: 30600619
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017 Jun 24;14(1):83
pubmed: 28646889